Results
Below you find for each supplied fasta file an individual tab. Each tab contains all the results and explanations to help you identify the possible phages.
The results are also grouped by blue tabs. All the citations can be found in the results directory as a .bib file
ERR575691_raw_assembly
Overview
Performance of each identification tool
Fig.1: UpSetR plot summarizes each tool’s performance. Additionally, it shows which tools (black dots) identified the same contigs (black bars).
How to read this plot
The “UpSet” plot is an alternative but more detailed Venn diagram, and it summarizes the prediction performance of each tool for your sample.
The total amount of identified phage-contigs per tool is shown in blue bars on the left.
Black bars visualize the number of contigs that each tool or tool combination has uniquely identified, and each tool combination is shown below each black bar as a dot matrix. E.g., a black bar with two dots below it means that these two tools identified the same contigs as phages.
Phage annotations
Tab.1: Gene annotation of contigs based on Hmmer and Prodigal, using this database
tax classification
| contig | prediction_value | predicted_organism_name |
|---|
ctg1_len=102949 0.53 gi_265524965_gb_GU071091.1___Enterobacteria__phage__T7,__complete__genome
Phage prediction by contig
Phage prediction table
Tab. 1: Interactive phage prediction table. The scores/p-values of each column can be filtered. The adjusted table can be exported as a .csv, .pdf or .excel.
How to interpret the data
WtP uses several phage prediction tools that work differently and generate different outputs. Contigs with the overall highest p-values/scores are displayed at the top, and contigs with low p-values/scores are at the bottom of the table. Each tool’s p-value/score can be individually adjusted and filtered in Table 1. Some tools don’t generate p-values or scores as output, instead they generate categories with likelyhoods, or directly predict and assign the contigs as phage.
The tool’s output and what WtP assigns is shown in the Table below.
Explanation tool output
Tab.2: The output of each tool and what WtP puts in Tab. 1.
| Tool | Standard output | WtP displayed value |
|---|---|---|
| deepvirfinder | p-value: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| metaphinder | string: phage | 1 |
| metaphinder own | string: phage | 1 |
| phigaro | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| pprmeta | phage_score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| seeker | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| sourmash | similarity: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| vibrant | prediction: virus | 1 |
| vibrant-virome | prediction: virus | 1 |
| virfinder | p-value: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| virnet | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| virsorter | category 1, category 2, category 3 | 1, 0.5, 0 |
| virsorter-virome | category 1, category 2, category 3 | 1, 0.5, 0 |
| virsorter2 | dsDNAphage: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
How to extract contigs of interest
- Choose/filter for the contigs of interest in Table 1.
- Export and download the table as a .csv file
- Execute the the following bash commands to extract the desired contigs from your .fasta
# make sure that the fasta and .csv file are in the same directory
for i in bla ;
hier kommt noch was
oranage: #F79A30
pink #E35E9F
lila #8F2ABF
done Taxonomic Phage classification
Tab. 1: Taxonomic classification of predicted phages based on sourmash using this database Each column can be filtered. The adjusted table can be exported as a .csv, .pdf or .excel.
hier nochn satz was der wert ist probability
ERR575692_raw_assembly
Overview
Performance of each identification tool
Fig.1: UpSetR plot summarizes each tool’s performance. Additionally, it shows which tools (black dots) identified the same contigs (black bars).
How to read this plot
The “UpSet” plot is an alternative but more detailed Venn diagram, and it summarizes the prediction performance of each tool for your sample.
The total amount of identified phage-contigs per tool is shown in blue bars on the left.
Black bars visualize the number of contigs that each tool or tool combination has uniquely identified, and each tool combination is shown below each black bar as a dot matrix. E.g., a black bar with two dots below it means that these two tools identified the same contigs as phages.
Phage annotations
Tab.1: Gene annotation of contigs based on Hmmer and Prodigal, using this database
tax classification
| contig | prediction_value | predicted_organism_name |
|---|
ctg1_len=102949 0.53 gi_265524965_gb_GU071091.1___Enterobacteria__phage__T7,__complete__genome
Phage prediction by contig
Phage prediction table
Tab. 1: Interactive phage prediction table. The scores/p-values of each column can be filtered. The adjusted table can be exported as a .csv, .pdf or .excel.
How to interpret the data
WtP uses several phage prediction tools that work differently and generate different outputs. Contigs with the overall highest p-values/scores are displayed at the top, and contigs with low p-values/scores are at the bottom of the table. Each tool’s p-value/score can be individually adjusted and filtered in Table 1. Some tools don’t generate p-values or scores as output, instead they generate categories with likelyhoods, or directly predict and assign the contigs as phage.
The tool’s output and what WtP assigns is shown in the Table below.
Explanation tool output
Tab.2: The output of each tool and what WtP puts in Tab. 1.
| Tool | Standard output | WtP displayed value |
|---|---|---|
| deepvirfinder | p-value: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| metaphinder | string: phage | 1 |
| metaphinder own | string: phage | 1 |
| phigaro | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| pprmeta | phage_score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| seeker | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| sourmash | similarity: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| vibrant | prediction: virus | 1 |
| vibrant-virome | prediction: virus | 1 |
| virfinder | p-value: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| virnet | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| virsorter | category 1, category 2, category 3 | 1, 0.5, 0 |
| virsorter-virome | category 1, category 2, category 3 | 1, 0.5, 0 |
| virsorter2 | dsDNAphage: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
How to extract contigs of interest
- Choose/filter for the contigs of interest in Table 1.
- Export and download the table as a .csv file
- Execute the the following bash commands to extract the desired contigs from your .fasta
# make sure that the fasta and .csv file are in the same directory
for i in bla ;
hier kommt noch was
oranage: #F79A30
pink #E35E9F
lila #8F2ABF
done Taxonomic Phage classification
Tab. 1: Taxonomic classification of predicted phages based on sourmash using this database Each column can be filtered. The adjusted table can be exported as a .csv, .pdf or .excel.
hier nochn satz was der wert ist probability
ERR576942_raw_assembly
Overview
Performance of each identification tool
Fig.1: UpSetR plot summarizes each tool’s performance. Additionally, it shows which tools (black dots) identified the same contigs (black bars).
How to read this plot
The “UpSet” plot is an alternative but more detailed Venn diagram, and it summarizes the prediction performance of each tool for your sample.
The total amount of identified phage-contigs per tool is shown in blue bars on the left.
Black bars visualize the number of contigs that each tool or tool combination has uniquely identified, and each tool combination is shown below each black bar as a dot matrix. E.g., a black bar with two dots below it means that these two tools identified the same contigs as phages.
Phage annotations
Tab.1: Gene annotation of contigs based on Hmmer and Prodigal, using this database
tax classification
| contig | prediction_value | predicted_organism_name |
|---|
ctg1_len=102949 0.53 gi_265524965_gb_GU071091.1___Enterobacteria__phage__T7,__complete__genome
Phage prediction by contig
Phage prediction table
Tab. 1: Interactive phage prediction table. The scores/p-values of each column can be filtered. The adjusted table can be exported as a .csv, .pdf or .excel.
How to interpret the data
WtP uses several phage prediction tools that work differently and generate different outputs. Contigs with the overall highest p-values/scores are displayed at the top, and contigs with low p-values/scores are at the bottom of the table. Each tool’s p-value/score can be individually adjusted and filtered in Table 1. Some tools don’t generate p-values or scores as output, instead they generate categories with likelyhoods, or directly predict and assign the contigs as phage.
The tool’s output and what WtP assigns is shown in the Table below.
Explanation tool output
Tab.2: The output of each tool and what WtP puts in Tab. 1.
| Tool | Standard output | WtP displayed value |
|---|---|---|
| deepvirfinder | p-value: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| metaphinder | string: phage | 1 |
| metaphinder own | string: phage | 1 |
| phigaro | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| pprmeta | phage_score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| seeker | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| sourmash | similarity: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| vibrant | prediction: virus | 1 |
| vibrant-virome | prediction: virus | 1 |
| virfinder | p-value: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| virnet | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| virsorter | category 1, category 2, category 3 | 1, 0.5, 0 |
| virsorter-virome | category 1, category 2, category 3 | 1, 0.5, 0 |
| virsorter2 | dsDNAphage: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
How to extract contigs of interest
- Choose/filter for the contigs of interest in Table 1.
- Export and download the table as a .csv file
- Execute the the following bash commands to extract the desired contigs from your .fasta
# make sure that the fasta and .csv file are in the same directory
for i in bla ;
hier kommt noch was
oranage: #F79A30
pink #E35E9F
lila #8F2ABF
done Taxonomic Phage classification
Tab. 1: Taxonomic classification of predicted phages based on sourmash using this database Each column can be filtered. The adjusted table can be exported as a .csv, .pdf or .excel.
hier nochn satz was der wert ist probability
ERR576943_raw_assembly
Overview
Performance of each identification tool
Fig.1: UpSetR plot summarizes each tool’s performance. Additionally, it shows which tools (black dots) identified the same contigs (black bars).
How to read this plot
The “UpSet” plot is an alternative but more detailed Venn diagram, and it summarizes the prediction performance of each tool for your sample.
The total amount of identified phage-contigs per tool is shown in blue bars on the left.
Black bars visualize the number of contigs that each tool or tool combination has uniquely identified, and each tool combination is shown below each black bar as a dot matrix. E.g., a black bar with two dots below it means that these two tools identified the same contigs as phages.
Phage annotations
Tab.1: Gene annotation of contigs based on Hmmer and Prodigal, using this database
tax classification
| contig | prediction_value | predicted_organism_name |
|---|
ctg1_len=102949 0.53 gi_265524965_gb_GU071091.1___Enterobacteria__phage__T7,__complete__genome
Phage prediction by contig
Phage prediction table
Tab. 1: Interactive phage prediction table. The scores/p-values of each column can be filtered. The adjusted table can be exported as a .csv, .pdf or .excel.
How to interpret the data
WtP uses several phage prediction tools that work differently and generate different outputs. Contigs with the overall highest p-values/scores are displayed at the top, and contigs with low p-values/scores are at the bottom of the table. Each tool’s p-value/score can be individually adjusted and filtered in Table 1. Some tools don’t generate p-values or scores as output, instead they generate categories with likelyhoods, or directly predict and assign the contigs as phage.
The tool’s output and what WtP assigns is shown in the Table below.
Explanation tool output
Tab.2: The output of each tool and what WtP puts in Tab. 1.
| Tool | Standard output | WtP displayed value |
|---|---|---|
| deepvirfinder | p-value: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| metaphinder | string: phage | 1 |
| metaphinder own | string: phage | 1 |
| phigaro | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| pprmeta | phage_score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| seeker | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| sourmash | similarity: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| vibrant | prediction: virus | 1 |
| vibrant-virome | prediction: virus | 1 |
| virfinder | p-value: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| virnet | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| virsorter | category 1, category 2, category 3 | 1, 0.5, 0 |
| virsorter-virome | category 1, category 2, category 3 | 1, 0.5, 0 |
| virsorter2 | dsDNAphage: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
How to extract contigs of interest
- Choose/filter for the contigs of interest in Table 1.
- Export and download the table as a .csv file
- Execute the the following bash commands to extract the desired contigs from your .fasta
# make sure that the fasta and .csv file are in the same directory
for i in bla ;
hier kommt noch was
oranage: #F79A30
pink #E35E9F
lila #8F2ABF
done Taxonomic Phage classification
Tab. 1: Taxonomic classification of predicted phages based on sourmash using this database Each column can be filtered. The adjusted table can be exported as a .csv, .pdf or .excel.
hier nochn satz was der wert ist probability
ERR576944_raw_assembly
Overview
Performance of each identification tool
Fig.1: UpSetR plot summarizes each tool’s performance. Additionally, it shows which tools (black dots) identified the same contigs (black bars).
How to read this plot
The “UpSet” plot is an alternative but more detailed Venn diagram, and it summarizes the prediction performance of each tool for your sample.
The total amount of identified phage-contigs per tool is shown in blue bars on the left.
Black bars visualize the number of contigs that each tool or tool combination has uniquely identified, and each tool combination is shown below each black bar as a dot matrix. E.g., a black bar with two dots below it means that these two tools identified the same contigs as phages.
Phage annotations
Tab.1: Gene annotation of contigs based on Hmmer and Prodigal, using this database
tax classification
| contig | prediction_value | predicted_organism_name |
|---|
ctg1_len=102949 0.53 gi_265524965_gb_GU071091.1___Enterobacteria__phage__T7,__complete__genome
Phage prediction by contig
Phage prediction table
Tab. 1: Interactive phage prediction table. The scores/p-values of each column can be filtered. The adjusted table can be exported as a .csv, .pdf or .excel.
How to interpret the data
WtP uses several phage prediction tools that work differently and generate different outputs. Contigs with the overall highest p-values/scores are displayed at the top, and contigs with low p-values/scores are at the bottom of the table. Each tool’s p-value/score can be individually adjusted and filtered in Table 1. Some tools don’t generate p-values or scores as output, instead they generate categories with likelyhoods, or directly predict and assign the contigs as phage.
The tool’s output and what WtP assigns is shown in the Table below.
Explanation tool output
Tab.2: The output of each tool and what WtP puts in Tab. 1.
| Tool | Standard output | WtP displayed value |
|---|---|---|
| deepvirfinder | p-value: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| metaphinder | string: phage | 1 |
| metaphinder own | string: phage | 1 |
| phigaro | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| pprmeta | phage_score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| seeker | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| sourmash | similarity: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| vibrant | prediction: virus | 1 |
| vibrant-virome | prediction: virus | 1 |
| virfinder | p-value: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| virnet | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| virsorter | category 1, category 2, category 3 | 1, 0.5, 0 |
| virsorter-virome | category 1, category 2, category 3 | 1, 0.5, 0 |
| virsorter2 | dsDNAphage: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
How to extract contigs of interest
- Choose/filter for the contigs of interest in Table 1.
- Export and download the table as a .csv file
- Execute the the following bash commands to extract the desired contigs from your .fasta
# make sure that the fasta and .csv file are in the same directory
for i in bla ;
hier kommt noch was
oranage: #F79A30
pink #E35E9F
lila #8F2ABF
done Taxonomic Phage classification
Tab. 1: Taxonomic classification of predicted phages based on sourmash using this database Each column can be filtered. The adjusted table can be exported as a .csv, .pdf or .excel.
hier nochn satz was der wert ist probability
ERR576945_raw_assembly
Overview
Performance of each identification tool
Fig.1: UpSetR plot summarizes each tool’s performance. Additionally, it shows which tools (black dots) identified the same contigs (black bars).
How to read this plot
The “UpSet” plot is an alternative but more detailed Venn diagram, and it summarizes the prediction performance of each tool for your sample.
The total amount of identified phage-contigs per tool is shown in blue bars on the left.
Black bars visualize the number of contigs that each tool or tool combination has uniquely identified, and each tool combination is shown below each black bar as a dot matrix. E.g., a black bar with two dots below it means that these two tools identified the same contigs as phages.
Phage annotations
Tab.1: Gene annotation of contigs based on Hmmer and Prodigal, using this database
tax classification
| contig | prediction_value | predicted_organism_name |
|---|
ctg1_len=102949 0.53 gi_265524965_gb_GU071091.1___Enterobacteria__phage__T7,__complete__genome
Phage prediction by contig
Phage prediction table
Tab. 1: Interactive phage prediction table. The scores/p-values of each column can be filtered. The adjusted table can be exported as a .csv, .pdf or .excel.
How to interpret the data
WtP uses several phage prediction tools that work differently and generate different outputs. Contigs with the overall highest p-values/scores are displayed at the top, and contigs with low p-values/scores are at the bottom of the table. Each tool’s p-value/score can be individually adjusted and filtered in Table 1. Some tools don’t generate p-values or scores as output, instead they generate categories with likelyhoods, or directly predict and assign the contigs as phage.
The tool’s output and what WtP assigns is shown in the Table below.
Explanation tool output
Tab.2: The output of each tool and what WtP puts in Tab. 1.
| Tool | Standard output | WtP displayed value |
|---|---|---|
| deepvirfinder | p-value: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| metaphinder | string: phage | 1 |
| metaphinder own | string: phage | 1 |
| phigaro | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| pprmeta | phage_score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| seeker | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| sourmash | similarity: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| vibrant | prediction: virus | 1 |
| vibrant-virome | prediction: virus | 1 |
| virfinder | p-value: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| virnet | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| virsorter | category 1, category 2, category 3 | 1, 0.5, 0 |
| virsorter-virome | category 1, category 2, category 3 | 1, 0.5, 0 |
| virsorter2 | dsDNAphage: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
How to extract contigs of interest
- Choose/filter for the contigs of interest in Table 1.
- Export and download the table as a .csv file
- Execute the the following bash commands to extract the desired contigs from your .fasta
# make sure that the fasta and .csv file are in the same directory
for i in bla ;
hier kommt noch was
oranage: #F79A30
pink #E35E9F
lila #8F2ABF
done Taxonomic Phage classification
Tab. 1: Taxonomic classification of predicted phages based on sourmash using this database Each column can be filtered. The adjusted table can be exported as a .csv, .pdf or .excel.
hier nochn satz was der wert ist probability
ERR576946_raw_assembly
Overview
Performance of each identification tool
Fig.1: UpSetR plot summarizes each tool’s performance. Additionally, it shows which tools (black dots) identified the same contigs (black bars).
How to read this plot
The “UpSet” plot is an alternative but more detailed Venn diagram, and it summarizes the prediction performance of each tool for your sample.
The total amount of identified phage-contigs per tool is shown in blue bars on the left.
Black bars visualize the number of contigs that each tool or tool combination has uniquely identified, and each tool combination is shown below each black bar as a dot matrix. E.g., a black bar with two dots below it means that these two tools identified the same contigs as phages.
Phage annotations
Tab.1: Gene annotation of contigs based on Hmmer and Prodigal, using this database
tax classification
| contig | prediction_value | predicted_organism_name |
|---|
ctg1_len=102949 0.53 gi_265524965_gb_GU071091.1___Enterobacteria__phage__T7,__complete__genome
Phage prediction by contig
Phage prediction table
Tab. 1: Interactive phage prediction table. The scores/p-values of each column can be filtered. The adjusted table can be exported as a .csv, .pdf or .excel.
How to interpret the data
WtP uses several phage prediction tools that work differently and generate different outputs. Contigs with the overall highest p-values/scores are displayed at the top, and contigs with low p-values/scores are at the bottom of the table. Each tool’s p-value/score can be individually adjusted and filtered in Table 1. Some tools don’t generate p-values or scores as output, instead they generate categories with likelyhoods, or directly predict and assign the contigs as phage.
The tool’s output and what WtP assigns is shown in the Table below.
Explanation tool output
Tab.2: The output of each tool and what WtP puts in Tab. 1.
| Tool | Standard output | WtP displayed value |
|---|---|---|
| deepvirfinder | p-value: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| metaphinder | string: phage | 1 |
| metaphinder own | string: phage | 1 |
| phigaro | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| pprmeta | phage_score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| seeker | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| sourmash | similarity: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| vibrant | prediction: virus | 1 |
| vibrant-virome | prediction: virus | 1 |
| virfinder | p-value: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| virnet | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| virsorter | category 1, category 2, category 3 | 1, 0.5, 0 |
| virsorter-virome | category 1, category 2, category 3 | 1, 0.5, 0 |
| virsorter2 | dsDNAphage: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
How to extract contigs of interest
- Choose/filter for the contigs of interest in Table 1.
- Export and download the table as a .csv file
- Execute the the following bash commands to extract the desired contigs from your .fasta
# make sure that the fasta and .csv file are in the same directory
for i in bla ;
hier kommt noch was
oranage: #F79A30
pink #E35E9F
lila #8F2ABF
done Taxonomic Phage classification
Tab. 1: Taxonomic classification of predicted phages based on sourmash using this database Each column can be filtered. The adjusted table can be exported as a .csv, .pdf or .excel.
hier nochn satz was der wert ist probability
ERR579308_raw_assembly
Overview
Performance of each identification tool
Fig.1: UpSetR plot summarizes each tool’s performance. Additionally, it shows which tools (black dots) identified the same contigs (black bars).
How to read this plot
The “UpSet” plot is an alternative but more detailed Venn diagram, and it summarizes the prediction performance of each tool for your sample.
The total amount of identified phage-contigs per tool is shown in blue bars on the left.
Black bars visualize the number of contigs that each tool or tool combination has uniquely identified, and each tool combination is shown below each black bar as a dot matrix. E.g., a black bar with two dots below it means that these two tools identified the same contigs as phages.
Phage annotations
Tab.1: Gene annotation of contigs based on Hmmer and Prodigal, using this database
tax classification
| contig | prediction_value | predicted_organism_name |
|---|
ctg1_len=102949 0.53 gi_265524965_gb_GU071091.1___Enterobacteria__phage__T7,__complete__genome
Phage prediction by contig
Phage prediction table
Tab. 1: Interactive phage prediction table. The scores/p-values of each column can be filtered. The adjusted table can be exported as a .csv, .pdf or .excel.
How to interpret the data
WtP uses several phage prediction tools that work differently and generate different outputs. Contigs with the overall highest p-values/scores are displayed at the top, and contigs with low p-values/scores are at the bottom of the table. Each tool’s p-value/score can be individually adjusted and filtered in Table 1. Some tools don’t generate p-values or scores as output, instead they generate categories with likelyhoods, or directly predict and assign the contigs as phage.
The tool’s output and what WtP assigns is shown in the Table below.
Explanation tool output
Tab.2: The output of each tool and what WtP puts in Tab. 1.
| Tool | Standard output | WtP displayed value |
|---|---|---|
| deepvirfinder | p-value: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| metaphinder | string: phage | 1 |
| metaphinder own | string: phage | 1 |
| phigaro | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| pprmeta | phage_score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| seeker | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| sourmash | similarity: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| vibrant | prediction: virus | 1 |
| vibrant-virome | prediction: virus | 1 |
| virfinder | p-value: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| virnet | score: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
| virsorter | category 1, category 2, category 3 | 1, 0.5, 0 |
| virsorter-virome | category 1, category 2, category 3 | 1, 0.5, 0 |
| virsorter2 | dsDNAphage: 0 to 1 | 0 to 1 |
How to extract contigs of interest
- Choose/filter for the contigs of interest in Table 1.
- Export and download the table as a .csv file
- Execute the the following bash commands to extract the desired contigs from your .fasta
# make sure that the fasta and .csv file are in the same directory
for i in bla ;
hier kommt noch was
oranage: #F79A30
pink #E35E9F
lila #8F2ABF
done Taxonomic Phage classification
Tab. 1: Taxonomic classification of predicted phages based on sourmash using this database Each column can be filtered. The adjusted table can be exported as a .csv, .pdf or .excel.
hier nochn satz was der wert ist probability